Keith fails (wilfully) to understand that there are a number of classes of words.

1) There are stressed monosyllables in -e- [eː] which are [eː] for everyone, as res [reːz] 'necessary'

2) There are monosyllables (often in low sentence stress) in -y- [ɪ] which are [ɪ] for everyone, as bys [bɪz] 'until'

3) There are stressed monosyllables in -y- [iː] (KK claims [ɪː]) for RMC but in -e- [eː] for RTC/RLC, as bÿs~bës [biːz]~[beːz] 'world'.

Class (3) is a very large class indeed, and if you don't indicate that the vowel is long you will cause confusion. Mispronunciation of bÿs 'wprld' words as bizz [bɪz] (with a short vowel) is widespread if not the norm for people who learn KK in recent years. We hear [prɪv] with a short vowel, not [priːv] or [preːv] with a long vowel in prÿv~prëv 'worm'. I'm sorry you don't like the diacritics, Keith—and we did propose to use Jordan's convention and write beis and preiv for these words—but the fact that the SWF does not distinguish between res-words and bys-words and bÿs~bës words is just going to support the same pronunciation problems that KK has already made common.

You see, despite the fact that Ken George and you believe that there is /i/ [iː]~[ i ] and /ɪ/ [ɪː]~[ɪ] in Middle Cornish, there isn't good evidence that the distinction was maintained after the very earliest period. Original /ɪ/ fell together either with /i/ or with /e/, most likely according to dialect. The same processes occur in dialects of English on both sides of the Atlantic. Most people say beer [biːr] but non-rhotic dialects may have [biːə] or [bɪːə]. Systematically, however, the phoneme is /i/ however realized.

For two decades learners of KK have used their native English /i/ [iː]~[ɪ] and they have analysed it for Cornish to treat orthographic i as long [iː] and orthographic y as short [ɪ]. Now there is nothing wrong with this: it's logical, it's regular, and indeed it's been built into the SWF in e.g. gwin [ɡwiːn] and gwynn~gwydn [ɡwɪn]~[ɡwɪᵈn] (don't give me any guff about how people say [ɡwɪnː] because they don't, but either way it's [ɪ]). The problem with KK and the SWF is that neither can distinguish the large bÿs~bës class of words from the other two classes. And all that is going to do is perpetuate the mistaken shortening of the vowel in every bÿs word to [ɪ]. Now tell me. Why would that be a good idea?

It's easy for an RMC learner to recognize that the word in bÿs 'world' is different from the vowel in bys 'until', because the difference is indicated in the orthography. Now unless you want to do something else like write byz on the one hand and byzz on the other, or to write beis on the one hand and bys on the other, you're not going to solve the problem.

You tell us that you think pronunciation is important, but all the learners of your own system have generalized y to be [ɪ], so what are you going to do about it? I think that yC~yCC is not going to fly, because it reduces authenticity and connection to traditional orthographic forms. (You may not care about that, but you ought to have learnt by now that enough people do for your view not to prevail.) UdnFormScrefys proposed ei~y, but the KK contingent wouldn't discuss it. SWF then offered RMC~RLC y~e, but did not distinguish these from other y-words and e-words. Solution? You could throw your hands in the air and say that we're all out of luck. But there is a solution. Mark those vowels. Those little dots will tell the reader "[iː], not [ɪ]". Regularly and simply.

factotum wrote:Michael, what a load of bollocks you talk. At least I know enough about the subject to see through it, although others are no doubt taken in by your assumed 'expert' status. Given that MC 'vy' (I) gives LC 'vee' whereas MC 'ny' (we) gives LC 'nei', combined with the fact that these two pronouns are identical in function, stress etc., it follows that the MC grapheme 'y' must here conceal two underlying and contrasting phonemes, just as 'th' conceals /D/ and /T/, 's' /s/ and /z/ etc. And this is supported by comparative data, showing that the vowels in 'vy' and 'ni' are different in origin. It follows then, by simple common sense apart from anything else, that if two sounds feed into MC, and two come out the other side into LC, and since we know that MC spelling was not up to the job of distinguishing all the sounds of that stage of the language, that in this case the two sounds persisted throughout, just that they weren't distinguished in MC. This is called 'taking note of all stages of the language'.

I'll answer this little tirade later, but I'm travelling today. I notice however, that you have ignored my explanations of wèl and hèn and crejy. That must be because I answered them, indicating that the tirade is more of your barrel-scraping.

Marhak wrote:Conan, don't you think that the fact that Dick has been speaking Cornish for 80 years might have something to do with it? That's far longer than anyone currently alive. He began to learn the language at the age of 4.

Learning at the age of 4 I think might be one of those modern myths. Dick seriously only learnt Cornish in adulthood in the 50's. There are still people alive who attended the same beginner's classes.
How Dick performs in Jowan Chyannor is very different to the way he performed Cornish language in the 70s. So I think percieved length of usage is a red-herring.

Evertype a skrifas:
(You may not care about that, but you ought to have learnt by now that enough people do for your view not to prevail.)

I think this is self-evidently the case, and goes to the heart of what has dogged us for years in trying to get everyone to accept a single orthography. There have always been 'enough people' who 'care' for a particular view or approach 'not to prevail'.

But it applies to many orthographic issues, and all orthographies - including KS. There are 'enough people' who 'care' about the unacceptability of diacritics for the views of its promoters 'not to prevail'.

We probably all know somebody that would accept Cornish with diacritics (although in my experience that comes with the caveat 'if everyone agreed to it'. And there's the problem - we'll never get everyone to agree to it!).

And we all know people that insist they will never use Cornish with diacritics themselves - 'enough people' who 'care', in other words, for it 'not to prevail'.

And these people are not from just one orthographic background, but from across the board. Some are quite happy to read Cornish with diacritics (because it's there and it's good Cornish). And some are willing to read Cornish with diacritics but are annoyed and irritated by it. And some won't read it at all simply because it's not their preferred orthography.

What they all have in common is that none of them is willing to use it themselves - 'enough people' who 'care' for it 'not to prevail'.

The writing is on the wall - after two years of having the option of using an orthography with diacritics (a relatively well-promoted one at that), how many people are doing so?
One.
And even if many more were doing so it would still be the case that although some 'may not care about' the use of diacritics, 'enough people do' for it 'not to prevail'.

That does not mean that anyone who wants to use Cornish with diacritics, or any of the other orthographies, should swallow their principles and stop using it - people should be encouraged to use whatever form of Cornish they wish to use or have been taught to use.

It does mean, however, that we will have orthographic choices into the foreseeable future and that the revival would be better served if we learnt to respect and accept each others' orthographic choices rather than arguing about them.

Nobody ever came to Cornish because they thought the spelling debate was important, interesting or relevant.
Nobody ever decided to learn Cornish because they thought it had finally been ascertained whether final vowels should be reduced to schwa in ablaut.
Nobody ever felt encouraged to continue by being told that the spelling system they'd been using for a number of years was 'inaccurate' or 'unauthentic' or 'old-fashioned' or 'used by practically nobody'.

Many, however, have refused to have anything to do with Cornish because orthography has been allowed to become such a big issue, and one which has been played out acrimoniously in public - giving the impression not only that the whole thing is a bear pit, but also that you need a degree in linguistics just to get started.
How many learners have we lost because of this? Most of us suspect it is a depressingly huge number.

It's time we moved on and put all our efforts into what really matters if the language is to have a chance - attracting people to it, teaching it effectively, and getting people to use it wherever and whenever they can.

Marhak wrote:It isn't a modern myth because he told me himself. His mother started him off when his father was vicar of St Winnows, in the far-off long-distant.

So his mother was a fluent Cornish speaker then? Why was he attending classes in the fifties?
I suspect my 'starting off' was at a similar age but I wouldn't have claimed anything from it. And certainly wouldn't claim to be a fluent speaker for nearly 40 years!

I was hearing the odd word and phrase when I was seven, and picked up more bit by bit over the years, but, like Dick, became a competent speaker when my age was in double figures. What matters is the use we have made of the language since. Dick's contribution since he acquired fluency is beyond price.

By the way, Craig, I am in fact the heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. You have to believe me, because I've just told you myself. QED.

Anselm

'Against a promontory my ship' Rump L. Stiltz-Kinn

'With regret I feel that unless you have a serious change of heart your presence at the Mennaye on Cornish Pirates match days is no longer desired.'Rod Coward
CEO
Cornish Pirates

I could swear Dick says "tiek" rather than LC (and Lhyud and Boson's) "tiak". It comes twice near the start of the tale. Also I don't seem to be hearing regular preocclusion, but there is a bit of echo on the recording which might be masking it. What do others think? It looks like he's still carrying on old UC habits (not surprising all things considered).

Michael, you little hobby-horse regarding 'byz' is mistaken. But if there are really are words that retain 'y' from MC through to LC, then they are the exceptions and so need to be marked, not the regular and frequent 'y ~ e' words. Also the UC inspired horror of _byz_ coming out as "biss" [bIs] is not confined to 'y ~ e' words (i.e. MC /I/) since while looking at recordings on the net, I actually heard someone pronounce _teg_ (LC 'teag' etc.) as "teck" [tEk]. I would put this down to UC spellings such as 'tek' given ad hoc anglicised pronunciation. UC has certainly left a long-lasting legacy of awful pronunciation. However I should like to encourage a move to something more authentic, whereas you seem to strive to institutionalise the error. Have you any idea what a joke that kind of Revived Cornish (or Cornic) looks like to both linguists and Welsh/Breton speakers alike? Clearly not.